lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] OF: Introduce DT overlay support.
Date
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:34:21 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:01:35 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 14, 2013, at 2:31 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:30:37 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:06:09 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> wrote:
> >>>> I'm of the opinion that 'platform_device' shouldn't exist at all btw :)
> >>>> Most of it's functionality can pretty easily be subsumed by device proper
> >>>> and the world would be a better place :)
> >>>
> >>> I'm fine for merging some/all of the platform_device fields into struct
> >>> device. There are a few things, like resources, which would probably be
> >>> useful to have common on all struct device variants. However,
> >>> platform_device is far more about matching drivers to devices. Even if
> >>> all of platform_device went into struct device, there would still need
> >>> to be the platform_bus_type as the collection point for the device
> >>> drivers.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We don't really need the resources structures on OF. That information is
> >> present in OF format, which we can use to generate transient resources for
> >> usage with the standard kernel interfaces.
> >>
> >> BTW, last time I checked resource handling was broken on release.
> >> There are a few patches I sent out fixing it but they were probably ignored.
> >
> > Please send them again. They probably got lost.
> >
> >>>>> Can overlays interact in bad ways? If overlay 1 is installed before
> >>>>> overlay 2, what happens if overlay 1 is removed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, they can. It is not something easily fixed; the proper way would
> >>>> be to calculate overlay intersection points and refuse to unload.
> >>>
> >>> I think this is important. If it cannot be solved immediately, then the
> >>> kernel should enforce overlays always get removed in the reverse order
> >>> that they were added. There may be use-cases that don't like it, but it
> >>> is safe.
> >>
> >> OK, that makes sense.
> >>
> >> We are not talking about a global overlay stack though, we're talking about
> >> an overlay stack for overlays that overlap.
> >
> > I'm actually talking about a global overlay stack. Otherwise you've
> > still got the ever-increasing-phandles problem again.
> >
>
> A global overlay stack is easiest. Let's do that first.
>
> There are use cases for multiple overlay stacks though. Take for instance the
> case where you have multiple plugin connectors.
>
> Each one can lead to creating a new platform device under ocp, but there is
> no overlap.
>
> Of course stackable expansion boards work just fine with a global overlay stack :)

Agreed. baby steps...

g.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-15 20:21    [W:0.491 / U:1.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site